Pharyngula

Posted by: MadScientist | May 28, 2009 9:00 PM

Excellent ... you can use the results of that to update your updated chart in "O Brave new World!". Does Ray Kurzweil swap with "hearsay" or with "professional judgement", or does he remain where he is?

Posted by: CMFlyer | May 28, 2009 9:06 PM

Didn't he invent awesome keyboards?

Posted by: jack* | May 28, 2009 9:08 PM

The man is a nut. If you look up "nutcase" in the dictionary you see him. Moreover, he's an egotistical nut. His reaction to valid criticism is not surprising in the least.

Posted by: Jeremy | May 28, 2009 9:16 PM

I think you're being unfair to Ray. His letter sounds pretty accurate and in response to your comment, at what point did the internet appear inevitable. Was it inevitable in 1900? What about 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? 1990?

Posted by: kevin B | May 28, 2009 9:20 PM

"in a snit"
"throwing a hissy fit"
"apoplectic"

That blogger code just means "I have personal animosity towards this person." It says more about the person writing it than about the subject.

I'm a fan of Kurzweil (in the same sense that I am a fan of this blog), and the little spat (see, I can do it too) that they are having doesn't really change that.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 28, 2009 9:22 PM

Kurzweil, proving that you don't need to be religious to be a kook.

All religious kooks should thank him for that.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Norton | May 28, 2009 9:34 PM

Anyone listen to the Michael Shermer vs Eric Hovind debate yesterday?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=143964

PZ should link the mp3.

Posted by: Robin | May 28, 2009 9:36 PM

Glen @12

He *is* religious though. Bodily transcendence through uploading, immortality, implicit eugenics... I don't see how it's any different!

Posted by: Norton | May 28, 2009 9:40 PM

Anyone listen to the Michael Shermer vs Eric Hovind debate yesterday?

You can listen to it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=143964

It's great Hovind gets destroyed.

Posted by: CMFlyer | May 28, 2009 9:42 PM

Synthesizers aside, I did enjoy reading Radical Evolution by Joel Garreau. Lots of DARPA, Kurzweil, and other odd entities. The Heaven, Hell, and Transcend scenarios of our technological future are pigeon-holed, but I think we will see elements of these ideas.

Posted by: NFPendleton | May 28, 2009 9:46 PM

To my recollection, the last great "geek cult" was Heaven's Gate...

I've read Age of Spiritual Machines and made it about 1/3 of the way through The Singularity is Near, and seriously wonder if he's putting his money where his mouth is.

It seems that Mr. Kurzweil has managed to amass himself quite a bit of wealth from his accomplishments, so is he pouring that back into the companies, universities, and individuals who will bring his predictions to life?

This would go a long way to showing where his motives lie - whether he's a nut, in a midlife crisis, a megalomaniac, a true believer, an excentric philanthropist, or any combination of the above.

Posted by: SomeGuy | May 28, 2009 9:48 PM

I think KevinB (@10) gets it basically right. Kurzweil's reply is calm, concrete, to the point, and civilized. That said, I don't have much time for the man myself. Frankly, there's just too much we don't know about very basic issues in my field for me to have much time for the sort of golly-gee predictions and self-promotion that Kurzweil engages in. Still, if Ray Kurzweil or Kevin Warwick or whoever manages to get kids excited about science, computer programming and medicine, so much the better. He may be a weird guru, but he's our weird guru. Think of him as the good guy's answer to Deepak Chopra.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 28, 2009 9:50 PM

I don't see how it's any different!

Well, his ideas are at least rooted in physical reality, and they don't assume that some magical outside force is going to take care of everything for us. There's nothing inherently magical about converting your mind from one physical substrate to another, though it remains to be seen if it's a practical exercise.

Kurzweil may be wildly optimistic in his assumptions; he may have a massive ego; and he may be motivated by the fear of death as any religious type; but I don't think his ideas, pared down to the basics, are the same sort of magical thinking as you find in the core of a religion.

It's unfortunate that he has crufted so much baggage onto that nugget. It's turning him into a laughingstock, same as what happened to Frank Tipler in his later years.

Posted by: The Tim Channel | May 28, 2009 9:55 PM

I don't think many are being totally fair with this guy. There is definitely a tinge of new age bullsquat mixed in with his desire for immortality, but he isn't invoking some higher unknown power as a means to an end. He's looking to science as his 'god', but it would appear that is only insofar as it keeping him alive or reanimating his beloved dead father.

I'm doubtful we'll get to a reanimation stage, but we'll surely get to a point where lifespan is extended beyond what have been normal in the past.

I don't think that we'll ever be able to replicate any mobile computing device that will compete with our human ability to convert food into thought. I agree with him that we will likely see a computer that can pass the Turing test

I'm wholly unconvinced that the process of evolution that has structured our brains and given us 20 petraflop computing capability will be possible to recreate in a silicon based computer package that would allow as a substitute for our brains.

His preoccupation with vitamin supplements and wacky cuisine tends to put me off a bit, but is hardly unique these days.

He looks to have a pretty solid list of scientific bona fides. He's not getting messages directly from God. He would seem to be, for all accounts, just the eccentric uncle with a passion for tinkering.

PZ, why is it that this guy gets under your skin so much when we'd both have to agree there are much bigger fish to fry, many of which are actually out to fry us.

Just wondering.

Enjoy.

Posted by: BJN | May 28, 2009 9:57 PM

Kurzweil is also a retro geezer typist who was taught to hit the spacebar twice after a sentence. Clearly Kurzweil is stuck in the days of fixed pitch type and hasn't unlearned a bad habit made pointless by computers with proportional fonts. Rather anachronistic for a "futurist".

Posted by: Tom Morris | May 28, 2009 9:57 PM

My favourite quote regarding Ray Kurzweil's singularity guff is from Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus and designer of Lotus 1-2-3:

It's intelligent design for the IQ 140 people. This proposition that we're heading to this point at which everything is going to be just unimaginably different - it's fundamentally, in my view, driven by a religious impulse. And all of the frantic arm-waving can't obscure that fact for me, no matter what numbers he marshals in favor of it. He's very good at having a lot of curves that point up to the right.

The idea that computers are becoming any more intelligent just pisses me off. It's so detached from reality. I mean, has the guy even used Microsoft Word? All it's attempts to try and be intelligent seem to me good reasons to switch back to a manual typewriter and a bottle of whiteout fluid.

Posted by: Greg F. | May 28, 2009 10:03 PM

I always get angry e-mails and comments when I say it, but I'll say it again. Ray Kurzweil has a religious view of technology. And this is coming from someone who spent years working with computers and software design...

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/05/22/ray-kurzweils-digital-religion/

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | May 28, 2009 10:11 PM

I read Kurzweil's "The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" and it is mostly nonsense. The deeper one gets into his theory, the less plausible it appears.

Posted by: zaardvark | May 28, 2009 10:17 PM

It's sad how he seems to believe his own soothsayer act. His correct predictions really are not that astonishing, to anyone versed in the history of the technologies in question. I'm reminded of psychics who, after 10 minutes of getting you to talk about yourself and a dead family member, tell you stuff you already about yourself and your dead family member.

It's a bunch of little things (you are a dog person, you are willing to take risks, but you aren't foolhardy), then a bunch of stuff you want to hear (you'll meet the right guy or girl when you're ready, you'll be able to keep the weight off, etc.).

With Kurzweil it's that the ubiquitous and near-instant global sharing of information will really take off, cell phones will get smaller, etc., and then suddenly... oh, you'll be able to digitize your brain and live to see the Sun balloon into a red giant, a few billion years from now. Don't forget to buy my new book, and my line of vitamins!

Posted by: Holbach | May 28, 2009 10:24 PM

Kurziwell will name a black hole after you, and send you a chart with the location and adjoining singularities. You can pick the galaxy of your choice with the option of travel to visit your black hole whenever convenient. Worm holes are extra and cannot be guaranteed to be there upon arrival.

Posted by: yeahpurn | May 28, 2009 10:37 PM

Kurzweil's response seems pretty legit whereas the newsweek article and PZ's posts come off as... well... dickish? I just don't really "get" your argument, PZ. I understand he could be wrong but even he seems to understand that. I guess what I am trying to say is, didn't Sean Hannity do something today that is 1000x worse for the world than anything Kurzweil has done?

@Timebender13 #3:
seriously? ALL respect? I know its easy to make statements like that but it is also easy to be retarded. so stop already.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 28, 2009 10:45 PM

Wasn't Kurzweil the one who predicted that the decade from 1999 to 2009 would be one of "uninterrupted economic prosperity"? At some point, I had a copy of The Age of Spiritual Machines, but I don't know where it got to (nor, to be honest, do I particularly care).

Posted by: Lyra | May 28, 2009 10:47 PM

Mr. Meyers' care cup is a bit too full. Even if Mr. Kurzweil is a "kook" he's not hurting anyone or brainwashing children, much unlike the religion nutters.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 28, 2009 10:57 PM

Kurzweil is just optimistic about the potential of science to the point that he has blinders on. There are much worse things that someone can be.

So, I can't criticize the traffic cop who gave me a ticket for no good reason, unless he also beat up Rodney King? Sheesh. But OK, in the interests of keeping the blogosphere a total love-fest, I shall refrain from critiquing the publications of any individual who does not reside in the bottom percentile of humanity.

I guess no more jokes about content-free, middle-management marketing hype, and no more complaints that M. Night Schlongmalong is ruining Avatar. Damn. Well, hopefully we can continue to criticize the worst of the worst, and not just the worst of the worst of the worst. So, George Lucas is probably still fair game, right?

Posted by: JD | May 28, 2009 11:14 PM

Oh, I was hoping for Ray Manzarek. Ho hum...

Posted by: doctor logic | May 28, 2009 11:58 PM

PZ's dislike of Kurzweil reminds me of Sean Connery's dislike of Alex Trebek on SNL. It's surreal.

Kurzweil is a showman, alright, and his predictions about uploading and cures for aging are, IMO, on shaky ground.

That said, I think Kurzeil's predictions are about right when it comes to computing power and AI. We're looking at approximately 20 years before machines are smarter than us. And 18 months later, they'll be twice as smart (er, twice as fast, anyway).

When we're no longer the dominant intelligence on the planet, the future is going to be even more difficult to predict. Call that a singularity if you like. Personally, I don't think it sounds very appealing, but it seems likely.

Posted by: Greg F. | May 29, 2009 12:09 AM

"We're looking at approximately 20 years before machines are smarter than us."

Please explain to me, a humble ex-IT person, how exactly a computer is going to get smarter than a human in 20 years. Please be specific and include the exact requirements necessary for AI to reveal itself.

Posted by: Dave | May 29, 2009 12:44 AM

PZ,

I have to agree that your animosity toward Kurzweil seems to be personal in nature -- that's based SOLELY on contrasting what you've written about him with what he wrote in that letter you linked to. I know nothing else about him, and only the bare basics about the Singularity theory, about which I am quite agnostic.

Whenever someone uses rhetoric such as yours against someone who actually deserves it -- the Hovinds and Donahues of the world, for instance -- I cringe. It's an effective way to make a point, and it makes me cheer a little, but I know it's not the least bit constructive. From what I can tell -- and again, this is based solely on reading the letter, as I don't have access to whatever constitutes "I have heard" -- Kurzweil does NOT deserve it. So I felt the need to call you out on it. So I am.

Posted by: William Carlton | May 29, 2009 12:52 AM

The Newsweak article unambiguously states that Kurzweil has ZERO doubt. That is just manifestly not true. The man is on record repeatedly expressing his doubts. In his rather even-toned letter to the editor, Kurz makes reasonable arguments why his embedded computer predictions are not so far off the mark. The article, not unlike PZ's periodic rants, was pretty skewed. I don't see the big deal, except...

I know a lot of scientists worry that longevity gurus like Kurzweil and Aubrey DeGray will suck the public interest, funding, etc from what they deem more legitimate research, so "transcendentalists" or whatever are not so much ridiculous as dangerous.

This strikes me as a reasonable position. I haven't been able to detect that this is PZ's objection to Kurzweil, et al. Something about it smells a bit more cynical than that. I suppose it doesn't hurt that he has found a new, marginal group to poke fun at for the sake of generating traffic on his blog.

It's worth pointing out that the record of people who say "Science can't do that" is rather dismal. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 29, 2009 1:02 AM

Why is it that all these folk sticking up for Kurzweil sound very much the same?

Posted by: Benjamin L Harville | May 29, 2009 1:20 AM

Some commentators on this blog post have expressed unease or disbelief that computers will ever be intelligent like us. I think these commentators are showing a bit of the religious impulse when they do this - holding out hope that their is some magic in us that can't be replicated by our machines. Personally, I have no doubt that machines in the future will be smarter than we are now but I think we'll augment our own intelligence at the same time so there's no reason to be alarmed.

Posted by: rob | May 29, 2009 1:26 AM

I have to agree that Kurtzweill doesn't seem that kooky. I think one of the other posters has it right. He's doing a little trick.

Look, a cell phone.
(Yeah?)
It's small.
(Uh, OK.)
Next year it will be smaller.
(Sure probably.)
Someday it might connect hook to your ear, and keep you in constant contact with a network that might resemble twitter, but you'll navigate it and experience it by sound.
(Sure, sounds reasonably cool.)
Won't that be just like telepathy?
(OK, sure, kind of. Because you'll be constantly hearing other people's thoughts. Sounds neat.)
And then we'll cure aging, and everybody will live forever, and we'll bond with machines and transcend humanity.
(Well, geez, that sounds kind of nutty, but I guess you got me on board with the telepathy thing, so…)

But wild predictions are just wild predictions. As long as we approach them with a reasonable amount of skepticism, it's OK to get five or ten wrong if you get one really, really right. Not necessarily anything special about it, but it's fun and interesting to think about, and in many ways tells us as much or more about the society we live in now as it does about the society we might someday live in.

That said, he's also a huckster and a fraud, and it seems to me that all of his best predictions have already been made long ago by the Jetsons.

Posted by: douq | May 29, 2009 1:43 AM

It's interesting to hear Ray plugging voice is just around the corner. Over 20 years ago when I was working at a voice technology company he was pushing VAT (Voice Activated Typewriter) as just around the corner. That's so far back a lot of people today might not even (really) know what a typewriter is, but you were going to be able to talk to it and get your term papers and business letters out zippy-quick. If his new prediction delivers he's only about two decades late. He probably doesn't want to include that prediction in his scorecard.

Posted by: intepid | May 29, 2009 2:15 AM

Select commenters (particularly littlejohn and Naked Bunny with a Whip),

You are turning this site into an echo chamber where the echos are louder than the original sound. I generally agree with PZ but still I find the enthusiastic take-downs of dissenters (eg #10) really fucking obnoxious.

When PZ trashes someone I generally have no problem with it, but when you climb aboard in overly enthusiastic agreement you sound like obnoxious groupies, the polar opposite of concern trolls* and equally as annoying for it.

* "unconcerned trolls"...? "lack-of-concern trolls"...?

Posted by: William Carlton | May 29, 2009 2:28 AM

Here is the concluding paragraph of the Newsweek article which treats the subject of Kurzweil's supposed certainty:

"Some leading artificial-intelligence experts were in the audience, and they think we are racing toward a dystopian future. But Kurzweil is having none of that—he thinks the "man-machine civilization" is going to be wonderful. He doesn't argue. He just sits there, smiling. Ask him a pointed question and he just dodges it and launches into another monologue. He has no doubt. None. He is utterly, completely, 100 percent sure that he is going to live forever. He will be reunited with his beloved father, and they will become immortal and spend eternity together. He is absolutely certain about this."

There are two assertions here, and they are that Kurzweil is unwilling to picture his Singularity as a nightmare for human beings and that he is totally convinced he and his loved ones will in fact live forever. Neither of these things are true. If the author of the piece had said that Kurzweil is certain his forecasting methods are sound, and has no record of questioning the science behind them, then we would be in agreement.

I'm not shilling for the Kurzweil circus here, but PZ and Newsweek have done little better than ad hominem attacks in their diatribes, and it's disappointing strictly from a fairness perspective.

Posted by: edw | May 29, 2009 2:59 AM

Some people are good at making stuff up (Kurzweil), while others are good at tearing stuff down (PZ). I think the former is probably a good deal harder.

Posted by: KevinC | May 29, 2009 3:06 AM

I would like to understand why PZ and others here have such a deep loathing for Kurzweil. Does Kurzweil make over-optimistic predictions for the future? Sure. Arthur C. Clarke predicted a huge, Apollo-style manned mission to Jupiter (plus the big rotating space stations, etc.) and an actual, sapient "Spiritual Machine" for 2001, but we don't see PZ and his readers hating him for it.

Or, compare PZ's treatment of Kurzweil with his treatment of Kent Hovind. Hovind merits a thorough, substantive post complete with links to Talk Origins debunking his main points. Kurzweil gets "Bah! He's a kook! And now he's in a snit because we called him a kook!" Is Kurzweil really that much worse than Kent Hovind?

Given that Kurzweil agrees with PZ, et. al. on most things (atheism: check; evolution is a fact: check; democracy: check; pro-science: check; stem cell research: check), I find this reaction strange. Maybe it's the same psychology that makes many theists hate heretics more than unbelievers. Compare how much space in the New Testament is spent arguing against alternative Christian/Jewish ideas vs. how much is spent on polemics against Zeus and Athena or Epicurianism. If that's not it, then why?

I'll agree that Kurzweil's obsession with nutritional supplements and whatnot sounds rather weird, but I don't know enough about the subject to do more than tentatively default to the mainstream.

The bit about Kurzweil wanting to create a simulacrum of his dead father...OK, that's pretty far out, but understandable if (like Kurzweil) you think it will be possible to create such a thing. Our own brains create internal simulacra of other people (dead and alive) all the time. Given the premise of things like mind uploading (with which he could copy his memories of Dad to a simulator program), Kurzweil would just be adding graphics and sound to "Father would really have loved this."

To some people unfamiliar with the concept (like certain indigenous peoples) the idea of creating a photographic simulacrum of somebody is repugnant. I do not recall seeing any thundering denunciations of Star Trek here for portraying the creation of simulacra of Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci, or even fictional characters like Moriarty in the Holodeck, or the creation of cyborgs (the Borg) or intelligent robots (Data).

The only difference I can see is that the techno-future of Star Trek is safely centuries away, and doesn't significantly change "the human condition." Even with magical "transporters" that were shown repeatedly to be able to do things like duplicate individuals and reverse aging...human life goes on pretty much as "normal."

The intelligent machines (Data is far from the first in Star Trek) have the courtesy to be easily-hoodwinked stock villains or one-offs (i.e., Data fails in his quest to create a daughter), and must always bow before the divine spark of human emotion or intuition. And most of all, they never change anything. No droid armies, robot body prostheses, distributed consciousness, intelligent Starfleet ships that don't need human crews, Borg Singularity, etc..

Star Trek has medical magic aplenty, which also doesn't change much. Gadgets heal by waving an energy-beam over a wound--but Picard has no better treatments for baldness and wrinkles than we do. And there are no 300 year-old human Admirals in Starfleet.

Which brings me to my best guess as to the source of the PZ-Kurzweil conflict:

PZ and his supporters[1] are "grumpy existential realists:" the Universe is pointless, life is a blind accident, and the messy ordinariness of 'real life'/'the human condition' (death and taxes, aging, disease, human limitations and flaws, etc.) is an eternal verity. A "We are the descendants of worms, deal with it" attitude.

Kurzweil and his supporters are "starry-eyed techno-transcendentalists:" Evolution has a trajectory toward greater intelligence/complexity/computational capacity, human technological "evolution" represents a pivotal stage in the "awakening" of the Cosmos, and 'real life'/'the human condition' will be altered radically within a few decades.

It seems to me that it's not really a disagreement about science--about whether life evolved and when, whether "God" exists, and so on.. PZ and Kurzweil agree on most of that stuff. PZ doesn't even bother to critique Kurzweil's premises and predictions with the degree of respect and thoroughness he grants the hypothesis that the Cosmos was created 6,000 years ago and that snakes, donkeys, and burning bushes can talk.

Even the "evolution has a trajectory/humans have a meaningful place in the universe" part of Kurzweil's philosophy doesn't stir this level of vitriol when it's expressed by, say, Michael Dowd or Carl Sagan ("we are star-stuff/we are the Cosmos becoming aware of itself").

The really bothersome part of Kurzweil's philosophy seems to be the last part, the idea that "the human condition" can and will be radically changed by science and technology--not at some safe time centuries in the future, but Really Soon Now. Future Shock? You ain't seen nothin' yet. This (aside from a few jibes about nutritional supplements) is the only part of Kurzweil's philosophy that gets any counter-argument. Perhaps the idea of having to face such rapid change is so viscerally repugnant to PZ and his supporters that it is to be rejected with an "Anathema!" rather than careful consideration and debunking.

I think Kurzweil is most likely wrong about the imminence of Singularity or massive changes in "the human condition." "Messy reality" has a way of screwing with optimistic predictions of the capital-f Future. See: Economic Crisis, Climate Change, Peak Oil. Still, I am glad that Kurzweil and others like him have raised these issues so we can have societal deliberation on them instead of leaving it to chance and the whims of the rich and politically connected.

My guess is that 50 years from now things will look pretty much the same, but with more crowded cities and fewer or no suburbs. Cars will still roll on the ground and they'll be smaller, lighter and with weaker performance than we're used to. Most of us will walk, bike, or take the train.

Video games and virtual reality will be utterly awesome, and your Bluetooth sunglasses will be the All-In-One-Electronic Gadget (computer, phone, camera, video...). VR will replace most long-distance travel. With Moore's Law in the past and environmental and resource constraints a foremost concern, the Bluetooth glasses will be built to last, and to be recycled.

If we're lucky, we'll have seen big improvements in solar cells, batteries/flywheels/hypercapacitors, wind turbines, biofuels, etc. and we'll have moved to a sustainable technological society. There will be a War On Disruptive Technologies (synthetic life, genetics, etc. especially as applied to altering humans) to go with the War On (Some) Drugs.

We will have stopped pretending to pursue manned space exploration, but the robots will be reporting back from every major body in the Solar System. Intelligent robots and nuclear fusion will still be due to arrive in 50 years.

See you then, Ray Kurzweil. :)

NOTES:

[1] By "PZ and his supporters" in this post I mean "PZ and those who feel the same way about Kurzweil." I am part of the set "PZ and his supporters" about most other things.

Posted by: KevinC | May 29, 2009 3:47 AM

#67 seems to support my comparison to theists hating heretics more than unbelievers. The orthodox (no prefix!) Humanists vs. the heretical tech-Gnostic Transhumanists.

I think a Singularity would be cool if it could be done democratically for everyone who wanted it (including the developing world) and without ecological offense--i.e., without the rich and powerful grabbing all the marbles first and making themselves into immortal cyber-god-kings, or turning the planet into Computronium. But the idea that such a thing is likely to happen--especially in the near future--sets of my Too Good To Be True Alarm.

If I were looking for an argument to say that Singularity is impossible (or so improbable that it might as well be) rather than just not imminent, I would point to Fermi's Paradox. As far as we have looked out into the Cosmos, we have seen no evidence of Dyson Spheres, Ultra-Mega Galacto-Computers or or any other examples of the kind of super-engineering a post-Singularity culture could do. OTOH, maybe all the post-Singularity cultures just disappear into their equivalents of World of Warcraft and loose interest in exploring or transforming non-virtual Reality.

Posted by: Logicel | May 29, 2009 4:40 AM

He is demanding that Newsweek print his letter? How do you know that? He certainly can ask for it to be published, no? His own publishing of his response does not seem to indicate that he is in a snit while making some points to clarify what he means.

I suppose he could be perceived as a kook; some very smart and productive folks are a bit kooky (in fact your love that is all that is squid related is a bit kooky, no matter how adorable and interestingly so). But if you mean that he is a complete and utter kook, in the sense of a Chopra or a Ken Ham, then you are wrong. Just plain out wrong.

Posted by: Luis Dias | May 29, 2009 5:01 AM

What, Daniel Lyons misquoting, misrepresenting and editorializing as only a moron would?

What a fucking surprise!!!

And PZ making wild claims like "I have heard that he is absolutely furious about that Newsweek article on him — he's harrassing the editors and staff, is demanding that they print his full rebuttal..." without any kind of evidence?

What a fucking surprise!!!

Kurzweil's lunacy is only surpassed by the snobbish idiotic reactions by both you guys.

Grow the fuck up!

Posted by: tus | May 29, 2009 5:09 AM

i dont know about this guy personally, but his letter seems reasonable to me...except he shouldnt have tried to defend the 20 petaflops thing...i understand in a time when a gigaflop was science fiction going as far as a petaflop would be pure fantasy, and if he had only said 1 petaflop he woulda been fine, as the roadrunner in los alamos is in fact 1 petaflop.

Posted by: John Vreeland | May 29, 2009 5:25 AM

I find it hard to take the whole thing seriously when it stems from an article in Newsweek. Next: Kurzweil rebuts an article in the National Inquirer.

Posted by: SomeGuy | May 29, 2009 6:00 AM

Mr Myers...I used to enjoy reading your blog ... [but] your posts have, IMHO, greatly reduced your credibility and created doubts as to your ability to comment accurately about the views of individuals you happen to disagree with.

Yah, I don't think so. It doesn't bother me to disagree with PZ one bit. I don't think a blog loses credibility by not echoing my own prejudices and judgements. In fact, it's kinda' nice to see. I'd hate to think that we're all clones. PZ may have been a touch uncharitable in his use of adjectives in this case. Whatever. If locating points of divergent judgement in conversation 'greatly reduced the credibility' of my friends in my eyes, I'd never discuss anything with them. And I'd have few friends left.

Posted by: Muffin | May 29, 2009 6:18 AM

If anyone wasn't already convinced that Kurzweil isn't the prophet of a new techno-religion and that the singularity wasn't the nerd rapture, they'd only have to look at the comments from Kurzweil's fans on this entry to become, in fact, convinced.

I literally can't tell a significant difference to the usual christian commenters, myself. Sure, the names are different, and it's about Kurzweil rather than god and Jesus, but outside of that, it's all the same: "I'm right, and you'll see in time", "how dare you criticize my beliefs", "my prophet wasn't wrong after all and I'll show you how to bend reality/what he said to make this true", and so on.

In fact, judging from the Newsweek article and other sources, that seems to be the problem people (myself included) have with Kurzweil, too: he claims to appeal to science only, yet he is apparently unable to admit even so much as a theoretical possibility that he might not be correct after all.

Posted by: Anri | May 29, 2009 7:58 AM

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but it would appear that the primary objection to Kurzweil's writing might be summed up in three words:

Show your work.

That, to me, seems to be the primary difference between someone writing science, and someone writing science fiction.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | May 29, 2009 8:09 AM

Just as Ray has his fanboy sycophants, so does PZ. So what? This is human behaviour 101.

I read Rays letter, and I have to say, it seemed absolutely fine. PZ, your blog struck me as fairly petty and mean spirited, and for no good reason that I can readily discern.

Posted by: Patrick | May 29, 2009 8:45 AM

The Newsweek article was the first detailed introduction to Kurzweil I've seen, and I actually didn't find much I disagreed with in his claims as reported in the article (except the 150 supplements a day, which is a ridiculously huge number). But then I read his rebuttal, which completely changed my mind on him.

A couple predictions from "the late 1990s":

"Computers will be commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry" is listed as false. When I wrote this prediction, portable computers were large heavy devices carried under your arm. Today they are indeed embedded in shirt pockets, jacket pockets, and hung from belt loops. Colorful iPod nano models are worn on blouses as jewelry pins, health monitors are woven into undergarments, there are now computers in hearing aids, and there are many other examples.

He has fairly clearly changed the meaning of 'computer' halfway through. He originally seems to be referring to 'portable computer' as 'laptop'. No (to the best of my knowledge) hearing aid has a computer, though I'm sure many have devices performing computations. iPods are really not worn as jewellery, even if Apple makes accessions to form as well as function. In no universe does 'embedded' (fixed firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass) mean to put an object in a jacket pocket. Devices like this, anyway, already existed around the time he made this prediction.

"Most portable computers will not have keyboards" is listed as "False." When I wrote this, every portable computer had an (alphanumeric) keyboard. Today the majority of portable computers such as MP3 players, cameras, phones, game players and many other varieties do not have keyboards. The full quote of my prediction makes it clear that I am referring to computerized devices that 'make phone calls, access the web, monitor body functions, provide directions, and provide a variety of other services.

MP3 players, (digital) cameras, (mobile) phones, and game players without keyboards all existed at the time he made this prediction (the GameBoy, for example, dates from 1989), demonstrating that he is again changing definitions partway through. All devices currently that make phone calls, access the web, and provide directions take primarily alphanumeric tactile input. If this is what he means by 'keyboard' then the prediction is meaningless. Portable heart rate monitors (what I think of when referring to devices that monitor bodily functions) have existed since 1977.

Lyons dismisses my accurate prediction (written in the mid to late 1980s) of a world web of computing and communications ubiquitously tying together people with each other and with vast information resources. He writes “But hold on a minute. Who didn’t think the Internet was going to catch on?” The answer is virtually everyone. I wrote this when the entire U.S. defense budget could only tie together a few thousand scientists with the Arpanet

I will grant him his web prediction, since that is sufficiently vacuously worded that it doesn't offer enough information to critique. Certainly, by the late '80s, Usenet was widely public, though I readily grant that it hadn't caught on outside the geek crowd.

And re. KevinC #93

I don't think it's quite fair to give him credit for predicting communications satellites, then grant insta-mulligans for every prediction he got wrong just because his portrayals of the future were written as science fiction.

We're willing to allow him this because his prediction of geosynchronous satellites was written as a non-fiction piece in a communications magazine. His other portrayals of the future were written as fiction, and therefore not taken as predictions (J.K. Rowling, after all, never suggested that wizards actually exist). I'm sure he could be seen as a futurist, though: probably all the great science fiction authors were either futurists or pessimists.

Posted by: John Morales | May 29, 2009 9:22 AM

Luis,

What is PZ attempting to do here rather than Ad Homineming the hell of this guy?

Should RK be exempt from the same criteria PZ uses to judge others? If so, why?

I think there's something Freudian happening in here, but I can't tell right now what exactly it is

Posted by: Luis Dias | May 29, 2009 9:36 AM

They were saying the same thing 20 years ago. And how long has the flying and/or automatic car been "real soon now"?

WTF has the flying car has anything to do with this? Has RK made a prediction of it?

Why don't you talk about "Fusion"? Perhaps go on on that veil and conclude that science also makes lousy predictions, therefore one should trust religion instead. Or else, be better informed.

I think PZ is merely being consistent.


Yeah, in being a twat. I agree.

Posted by: Philosopher Plebian | May 29, 2009 9:53 AM

Man, PZ was right that this guy has major computer nerd supporters. Look at this: he does what he always does to everyone in this blog (i.e. snark and sarcasm) and WHAM! The geeks come crawling out of the woodwork to defend Kurzweil from the nasty, mean ol' PZ (and they're smart enough to be very polite about it too-got to admit that that's impressive).
I think you've found your sacred cow, guys. It's OK when PZ bashes creationists and intelligent design nutjobs without fully addressing their arguments, but when he does it to the futurists you get all defensive.

Posted by: FrankieAvocado | May 29, 2009 10:08 AM

@ #99 - the first working flying car was built in 1957 and was called the Aerobile. Nobody is trying to build new ones or better ones today because it turned out to be a pretty rubbish idea in the first place. There are also already autonomous vehicles. So perhaps you just haven't been paying attention to technology since 1956.

RK does have some pretty ridiculous predictions sometimes, but I find that most of the ones directly relating to technology are accurate. For example: most of the computers that we use today DON'T have QWERTY keyboards for interfaces (cellphones, microwaves, cars, my Xbox 360, my DVD player etc etc). Speech recognition is widespread and often used by people to write books (Dragon Naturally Speaking), to control their computers (Mac OS has included it since 1993), nearly every cellphone has it built in (I use it to dial when I turn on my car's bluetooth system), and most companies use speech recognition software for when you call their help line (in fact, I activated my first copy of Windows XP by talking to software over the phone).

I don't think that RK has a problem with people pointing out where he has made mistakes, I think it annoys him that people pass off the predictions that he was right about, as false.

Posted by: KevinC | May 29, 2009 10:33 AM

Gruesome Bob wrote (#99):

They were saying the same thing 20 years ago.

The failure of a prediction/development of a technology in the past does not mean that it cannot be developed in the future, or that any other prediction of its development must necessarily be wrong. "Leonardo da Vinci failed to create a flying machine, therefore those kooky Wright Brothers can't possibly do it." Nor does the previous failure to develop a technology or predict its development mean that the next attempt to do either will necessarily work.

And how long has the flying and/or automatic car been "real soon now"?

Various types of "flying car" have already been built. What hasn't happened for them is market saturation which is a whole different problem. The problem is not as much technological (flying cars are impossible) as social, infrastructural, and economic.

A flying car is only good if you're the only one who's got one. You can soar over all those other mooks stuck in traffic and land on top of your penthouse. Or, take it out and do loops and aerobatics--what fun! But if you're living in a city and there's a million of the things buzzing around...not so good.

Furthermore, it isn't easy to fly an aircraft. It's not something you can teach high school kids in a couple weeks. And if the craft has some kind of malfunction, you can't just hit the brakes and pull over or coast to a stop if it's your brakes that aren't working. It also takes more energy to hold something aloft than to roll it on the ground, ergo: more expensive (high-performance) craft, greater fuel costs.

So, the market for "flying cars" is pretty much going to be limited to people with A)plenty of money; and B) the interest and ability to learn the difficult skill of flying. Which means: the people who own Cessnas, Piper Cubs, and private helicopters. The technology of personal aircraft exists, and has for some time. There just isn't much of a market for them, or any compelling reason to make the trade-offs necessary (safety, noise pollution, etc.) to have them land in their owners' driveways.

"Automatic" cars--by which I'm guessing you mean cars that are computer-controlled--already exist in their "Stanley Steamer/Model T" stage.

Exactly what makes it right now versus then?

WRT "automatic cars," I think existing hardware is a pretty good indicator. Also, notice how you guys are setting things up so that someone like Kurzweil cannot possibly win. If the hardware exists in a primitive state when the prediction is made (as with many of Kurzweil's "successful" predictions), then you guys say "Bah! His prediction is trivial!" If the hardware doesn't exist (as with human-comparable AI), then you say "Bah! You have no evidence for that prediction! It's just like Madame Blavatsky!"

Posted by: anon. | May 29, 2009 11:00 AM

Man, I hope this kook isn't really the best spokesman the trans-humanist movement has.

Damn, we're gonna be meatbags forever...

Posted by: Ck | May 29, 2009 11:22 AM

Come come now PZ - take it on the chin and admit you F'up on this one. You are now are digging an even bigger hole for yourself. Now you tell us you have a 'source' 'inside Newsweek' who is secretly feeding you information about who is harassing the editors and demanding a rebuttal. I can understand how you can disagree with the religious kooks but at this point you are appearing quite kooky yourself to any fair minded person who has read what you have written and alluded to.

Now just take it on the chin, say you f'ed up ad lets all move on but please stop making up childish shit about your Watergatesque inside sources.

Posted by: stogoe | May 29, 2009 12:14 PM

Wow, the swarm of transhumanists descends! Fear of death is what drives them, just like every other religion. No, you're not going to be downloaded into the Computer Consciousness Core and live forever. No, you're not going to have a robot body. You guys are worse than Glen Reynolds.

For the record, I do think that AI will emerge, and that cyborg replacement parts will become the norm at some point. But I also think it will take far longer and be far more difficult than anyone is willing to admit. "Genetic Engineering" has promised instant cures are just around the corner for decades, and while there have been significant advancements in the field, eliminating genetic diseases in an adult human via a pill is still the stuff of fairy tales.

You and Kurtzweil will be long dead and decomposed when the squid-piloted Mecha make their first strike against Robotopia Prime and the far-removed descendants of the humble capuchin are all that remains of our clade.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 29, 2009 12:40 PM

Uh, no offense, Rev BDC and other IT Pharyngulites.

Posted by: Otto | May 29, 2009 1:28 PM

Why this animosity towards Ray?
Is there an incompatibility between technology and biology?

Posted by: Hap | May 29, 2009 2:02 PM

#118: In short, "all hat, no cattle". It doesn't require genius to predict lots of things with few testable conclusions - that's how lots of astrology columnists make a living. Genius is coming up with really novel predictions and then correlating them to reality. The latter part seems to be RK's shoal.

Futurists are interesting and sometimes inspiring, but mostly pointless (except for the cash flow). Making the predictions real (and having ones that can be made real) is where the power is. His lack of specific knowledge has been criticized before as well (see In The Pipeline for an example).

Posted by: Stu | May 29, 2009 2:41 PM

Walton wins the thread at #105. Y'all can unbunch your panties now.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 29, 2009 2:59 PM

It wouldn't the problem that your life would depend on IT guys, but rather that you were created by Microsoft.

I don't know that Apple's iCyborgs would be much better.

Seriously, if it's going to cost twice as much, I don't need a translucent fuchsia body plastered with the logo of the Cult of Steve Jobs.

Posted by: Codswallop | May 29, 2009 3:07 PM

Kurzweil is my neighbor. Yes, he IS a genius. And yes, he IS 100% bat-shit crazy.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | May 29, 2009 3:35 PM

Otto asked:
"Why this animosity towards Ray?
Is there an incompatibility between technology and biology?"

You know, I think this almost has it. However, the incompatibility is not between technology and biology, but between immortality and biology. Think about it. Do we really want a bunch of mean old guys in cyborg bodies saying, "Get off my lawn." If we achieve even cyborg immortality, evolution ends.

And yet, immortality is what we think we all want. Kurzweil's whole spiel sounds a little too much like a comforting lie we tell our selves, with out even really assessing whether it's desirable or feasible or looking at the consequences. I can think of a lot of reasons why engineers might like this a lot more than scientists.

Posted by: The Tim Channel | May 29, 2009 4:43 PM

My final comments on this thread.

Thanks PZ for interjecting the info about your inside sources in regard to their feelings about Ray prodding them for what he perceives as misinterpretations of his position. I trusted you from the outset that you were being honest about that point anyway.

I'm still a trifle confused about why Ray gets under your skin so much, and I'm not a Ray fanboy, I'm a PZ fanboy. My bona fides? I actually watched your commencement video the other day and enjoyed it.... (I have no life...my wife is out of the country right now.)

Automatic cars would not necessarily require a retrofit of the roadways, assuming a vehicle GPS system that is accurate enough, coupled with map overlays and vehicle dead reckoning. Collision avoidance can also be handled on vehicle (radar braking assist already standard in some vehicles). May or may not ever be implemented, but it's already technologically feasible without resorting to some sort of weird science or complete infrastructure overhaul. If your car was retrofitted with the same type of remote guidance technology we're using to blow up goats, goat herders and the occasional terrorist in Afghanistan, I could simply OUTSOURCE my driving task to some desk jockey in Punjab.

I default to the poster who believes the source of your displeasure stems from a biology vrs technology platform. I think I can see a bit of that going on in my head as well. If the end goal of folks like Ray is to live forever, it might just be because they never had the chance to recollect on the philosophical conundrum offered in the movie Zardoz.

Very interesting and thought provoking thread if I do say so myself.

Enjoy.

Posted by: KevinC | May 29, 2009 5:37 PM

@ 129: Oh, so if anyone does not join Pope Myers and the Church of Biology, University of Minnesota Synod in heaping curses and anathemas upon that vile heretic and blasphemer Kurzweil, then that person is a worshipful devotee of Kurzweil. Or maybe Satan...or Kurzweil AND Satan. "Yer either with us, or yer with the ter'rists." Right, got it. Aren't you guys going to check to make sure Kurzweil weighs as much as a duck first?

@ 128 and 130: Hmmmm, maybe we're getting to the root cause here. "If Natural Selection had meant for humans to live a really long time, He/She/It would have evolved us with longer lifespans! Thou Shalt Not Meddle with What Nature Hath Given Thee!"

Are any of you in the Church of Biology willing to give up the doubling of human life expectancy we've already given ourselves with the Industrial Revolution, so that "evolution" not be hindered? Shouldn't all us old bastards 40 and over die to make way for the young?

As for "the philosophical conundrum offered in the movie Zardoz:" no, we should not allow filmmakers to create such a bizarre acid trip of a movie, especially if it includes costuming such as that of Sean Connery's character. :) OK, to be more serious, if there comes a point when one has actually experienced everything worth experiencing and continued life is literally a fate worse than death, then by all means, one should have the right to choose death. Just make sure the Terry Schiavo Zombie Immortalist Front has been politically neutralized.

However, if you're going to oppose the idea of technological expansion of the human lifespan, I hope you will not be so hypocritical as to accept a triple bypass surgery so you can keep telling the kids to get off your lawn. You have a moral obligation to die and leave the lawn to them, right?

Posted by: trespassers | May 29, 2009 6:13 PM

@133 "Being a MS robot would be like being in Hell. Being an Apple robot would probably be like being in the Matrix. Both are imperfect, but I know what I would prefer."

And of course, those are your only options, especially in the context of a future where AI actively shapes itself to be fitter. [/sarcasm]

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2009 6:25 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space at #128

I can think of a lot of reasons why engineers might like this a lot more than scientists.

Well, I am an engineer and an old geezer and I want to live forever.
Live is fun!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2009 7:04 PM

I like Ray Kurzweil, although I don't agree with everything he says and does.

In Wiki it says

He exercises frequently, does not eat to excess, and does not abuse recreational drugs.

That's excellent advise.

In The Singularity is Near he expresses a need for a new religion based on the principle of mutual respect between sentient life forms, and on the principle of respecting knowledge.

That too, makes a lot of sense to me.

I admit I am biased, as I own a Kurzweil digital baby grand piano, and have a thing for inventors, but it seems to me that PZ is in an uncalled for snit about Ray Kurzweil.

Posted by: Katkinkate | May 29, 2009 7:31 PM

Posted by: FrankieAvocado @ 104 "... For example: most of the computers that we use today DON'T have QWERTY keyboards for interfaces (cellphones, microwaves, cars, my Xbox 360, my DVD player etc etc). ..."

How many people consider phones, microwave ovens, cars and game machines as computers?

Posted by: rob | May 29, 2009 8:42 PM

How many people consider phones, microwave ovens, cars and game machines as computers?

I would. That seems fair. They are computers, really, just for very specific functions.

But really, the prediction that such computers wouldn't have QWERTY keyboards doesn't seem all that impressive. We're still stuck interacting with them via buttons, and a keyboard is just a bunch of buttons in one place.

If he could point to common computing devices that are primarily interacted with through something besides buttons, I might even be willing to give him that one.

Posted by: dead santa | May 29, 2009 9:10 PM

Well, I just think Kurzweil is wrong when he talks about copying human consciousness into a machine. It seems clear to me that human consciousness is just a construct of a functioning mind; not something that can exist separately. Seeing people who have suffered closed-head injuries really clarified that for me. Besides, even if my consciousness could be copied, I'd still die. I'm not so egotistical to think that my clones have more worth than those other billions of people. Exit stage left for me.

Posted by: KevinC | May 29, 2009 11:54 PM

Anonymous (#135) wrote:

Religion is not pro-science, by definition really. They start with the god-belief, then build upon that undisprovable axiom. We don't reject religion because it flies people into buildings -- we reject it because there is no empirical evidence to support it.

Kurzweil's goofball predictions are not pro-science either. You might say they are because they follow the theme of "yay Science! Science is good! Science will make us immortal and also bring back our ancestors from the dead!" That's not a pro-science viewpoint, even if it has a favorable attitude towards the practice of science.

OK, it seems that in your viewpoint, in order for a movement or organization to be "pro-science" it pretty much has to be science. I was defining "pro-science" as being favorable to the practice of science, being consistent in supporting the practice of science, voting and campaigning in favor of science, etc..

I'll agree with you that Kurzweil's predictions are not science. However, I think that if you were to ask Kurzweil "What is our best method of arriving at accurate knowledge?" he would say "Science." He would not talk about faith, revelation, divine intuition, or any other form of "just knowing." That he's not practicing science with perfect consistency is a human foible.

I don't have a problem with people debunking his predictions and any other insufficiently supported claims he might make. What I still find strange is the way that so many people here (PZ foremost among them) give more credence (measured in willingness to engage and debate ideas) to Kent Hovind than to Kurzweil.

Regardless of how wrong his predictions may well turn out to be and how many vitamins he takes, Kurzweil has produced useful new technologies and supported others who are developing useful new technologies and scientific research. While he has his blind spots and inconsistencies, I think it likely that Kurzweil would advocate the scientific method rather than undercutting it with appeals to faith, revelation, etc.. That, in my opinion, puts him a few orders of magnitude above the likes of Hovind and PCS (fka VenomFangX).

So why does Kurzweil get treated so much worse around here?

Posted by: Nominal Egg | May 30, 2009 12:46 AM

Tim Channel,

Why do you end every single one of your comments with "enjoy"?
Mind you, this is not intended as a complaint, but an honest inquiry into your motive. Are you afraid we may not enjoy your input if you don't command us to?

Explain.

Posted by: Brian X | May 30, 2009 1:26 AM

(In fact, at this point, given what we do know about strong AI, I'd put it as a field of research slightly above parapsychology in respectability. The only difference is that AI isn't entirely delusional.)

Posted by: Dennis | May 30, 2009 9:14 AM

Well, I lost a little bit of respect for PZ. Why insult a man with whom you disagree? If you think his science is so mistaken, why not challenge it with contrary evidence? Why immediately insult and call names? It is unfortunate that Ray has a bit of a cult-of-personality thing going on, but he is no amateur to science, and I don't think he should be dismissed so quickly.

Posted by: North of 49 | May 30, 2009 12:42 PM

Well, I'd like to thank PZ for this post because of the thought-provoking discussion it's generated. A great read.

Regarding futurists in general, their discipline, if one can call it that, still seems to have a bit too much of a frontier flavour, like the 1830s and 40s in the South Seas, full of larger-than-life adventurers, eccentrics and outright loonies catting around the place in rickety sloops knocking together empires and frightening the natives. Kurzweil would probably have gotten along famously with Rupert Brooke, for example.

Trying to imagine the shape of the future is something we all do to some extent, and indeed it's turning into something of a coherent discipline now; Sara Robinson at Orcinus has written about it, and I think even has a degree in it, so clearly, with universities offering degree courses in future studies, it's becoming less wild and woolly and more structured.

Where Kurzweil and other futurians like him (Toffler comes to mind) stick in my craw is the habit noted by several commenters already: they'll offer a set of plausible predictions that could actually be useful in guiding public policy, mixed in with wildly improbable blue-sky speculation that depends on too many variables and breakthroughs to be a helpful guide, and no real differentiation between the two.

Prognostication, even really tentative prognostication, can be tremendously useful to our species, but what Kurzweil and others seem to do, by mixing the plausible in with the improbable, is cheapen the product. We see what the media does with stuff like this, don't we? Pick out the sensational bits (you can talk to your dead Dad!) and either scare the public or turn them off futurian thinking entirely (oh, there go those loony scientists again). It isn't helpful.

Trying to figure out what the future is going to do to and for us before it gets here is bloody important, but it does the discipline no service to prophesy rocket boots as if they were a freaking certainty -- by Date X, no less -- and then not deliver.

So I understand PZ's frustration. To me Kurzweil's sin is the same as Andrew Weil and other woo-meisters' ploy of offering useful health advice -- eat right, exercise, keep your vices to a minimum (advice you can get from any real doctor) -- and then riding on the plausibility of that advice to sneak in all sorts of evidence-free "alternative medicine" baloney which, by a strange coincidence, they just happen to have ready to sell you. "Bait and switch", isn't that what we used to call it?

The problem is that the public is left to do the sorting out of the wheat from the chaff on its own, without any better tools than its own common sense. (That poor, sad, battered and bewildered tatter of a thing.) I don't see how that can end well.

Posted by: rational | June 1, 2009 2:57 AM

I have messaged pz a while back, after his older post on Kurzweil's graph of accelerating change(remember that post?), to critically examine his ideas from a biological perspective. Maybe I shouldn't have done so, raising the probability of this post happening, seeing as this post is just an ad hominem attack on kurz, just like the ad hominem attack on Greg Cochran(maybe left-wing bias?).

Posted by: Matt | July 28, 2009 11:37 AM

Hey PZ, you really ought to do a thorough debunking of Kurzweil on strong AI and nanotech. It not your field I know but it should be easy enough.